Summary
A sweeper employed on a fixed monthly honorarium had obtained reinstatement with back wages after her termination was held to breach retrenchment requirements. Considering the contractual appointment, approximately four years of service, and absence of specific allegations or findings of unfair labour practice, the Court substituted ₹3 lakh compensation. The employer’s appeal was partly allowed, with payment directed within four weeks.
Issues
- Whether reinstatement with back wages was the appropriate remedy in the particular circumstances of the sweeper’s contractual employment.
Held
- Although the employer characterised the engagement as fixed-term, the appointment order continued it until further orders. The Court nevertheless noted its contractual nature, fixed monthly honorarium and approximately four years of service when assessing the appropriate remedy. (¶ 6)
- There were no specific allegations of unfair labour practice in the complaint and no specific finding establishing such practice. The Labour Court’s finding concerned breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. (¶ 6)
- On these peculiar facts, reinstatement with back wages was unwarranted. The award and High Court judgment were modified by substituting a lump sum of ₹3 lakh, payable within four weeks, with no order as to costs. The decision did not establish a general exemption of contractual employment from retrenchment protections. (¶ 7-8)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; reinstatement and back wages replaced by ₹3 lakh compensation payable within four weeks. No order as to costs.